The Brief Rehabilitation Assessment for Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer (BRASH): Content and Discriminant Validity
Alyssa Komar, Colleen Dunphy, Sara E. McEwen, Jorge Rios, Helene J. Polatajko, Jolie G. Ringash
Abstract
Alyssa Komar, Colleen Dunphy, Sara E. McEwen, Jorge Rios, Helene J. Polatajko, Jolie G. Ringash
Abstract
Background: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) face challenges that may negatively impact health-related quality of life. Despite evidence suggesting that rehabilitation addresses many of their needs, survivors of HNC do not consistently receive rehabilitation services. Purpose: To evaluate the content and discriminant validity of the newly developed Brief Rehabilitation Assessment for Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer (BRASH), a patient-centered assessment tool. Methods: To assess content validity, 20 health care professionals completed the Content Validity Index (CVI). To assess discriminant validity, the BRASH goals and scores of 23 participants were compared with the items and scores of a standardized health-related quality-of-life measure. Data were analyzed using Spearman ρ correlation coefficients. Results: The BRASH received a CVI score of 0.81, indicating acceptable content validity. The BRASH's physical, cognitive/psychosocial, activity/role, open-ended question, and goal-setting domains received CVI scores of 0.81, 0.70, 0.84, 1.00, and 0.74, respectively, indicating acceptable content validity by domains. Regarding discriminant validity, of the 35 goals identified in the BRASH, 71% were addressed by the standardized measure. Correlations between the scores on the BRASH and the standardized measures were moderate to weak. Limitations: This study provides initial support for content and discriminant validity of the BRASH. Future research should examine additional aspects of validity and responsiveness. Conclusions: The BRASH demonstrates acceptable content validity, suggesting that it adds value to patient-centered rehabilitation consultation for survivors of HNC. In comparison with a standardized quality-of-life measure, it specifically focuses on rehabilitation needs of the individual patient.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Background: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) face challenges that may negatively impact health-related quality of life. Despite evidence suggesting that rehabilitation addresses many of their needs, survivors of HNC do not consistently receive rehabilitation services. Purpose: To evaluate the content and discriminant validity of the newly developed Brief Rehabilitation Assessment for Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer (BRASH), a patient-centered assessment tool. Methods: To assess content validity, 20 health care professionals completed the Content Validity Index (CVI). To assess discriminant validity, the BRASH goals and scores of 23 participants were compared with the items and scores of a standardized health-related quality-of-life measure. Data were analyzed using Spearman ρ correlation coefficients. Results: The BRASH received a CVI score of 0.81, indicating acceptable content validity. The BRASH's physical, cognitive/psychosocial, activity/role, open-ended question, and goal-setting domains received CVI scores of 0.81, 0.70, 0.84, 1.00, and 0.74, respectively, indicating acceptable content validity by domains. Regarding discriminant validity, of the 35 goals identified in the BRASH, 71% were addressed by the standardized measure. Correlations between the scores on the BRASH and the standardized measures were moderate to weak. Limitations: This study provides initial support for content and discriminant validity of the BRASH. Future research should examine additional aspects of validity and responsiveness. Conclusions: The BRASH demonstrates acceptable content validity, suggesting that it adds value to patient-centered rehabilitation consultation for survivors of HNC. In comparison with a standardized quality-of-life measure, it specifically focuses on rehabilitation needs of the individual patient.
Key concepts: Content validity, Discriminant validity, Rehabilitation, Face validity, Predictive validity, Criterion validity, Psychosocial, Construct validity